Jump to content

Talk:Abyei

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Renewed violence section - rewrite possible?

[edit]

This section was updated comprehensively across the past few months. Some reports (eg http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=79527) are now suggesting that a resolution has been reached, so it is likely that incidents of violence will decline. I'd like to redraft this section so that it reads less like a chronology of events and is more of a summary of the past eight months. What do we think? Damian Doyle (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's be great if you could make it sound like it was all written at one time.  ;) Wikipedia articles do get the classic look as one sentence gets added as a time as an event unfolds. - BanyanTree 12:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original inhabitants of region (NPOV?)

[edit]

This article shows Abyei area belong to Dinka Ngok, however, Messiria tribes of Baggara Arabs also claim the region as theirs since their migration to the region around year 1775, long before Ngok Dinka migration to the region from Bahr El Ghazal.

  • Here is one reference for Messiria Humr entitled: Ian Cunnison, 1966, Baggara Arabs, Power and the lineage in a Sudanese Nomad Tribe, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pages. Cunnison lived with the Messiria for sometimes wrote an excellent account about them. The British documented when Dinka Ngok moved in the area, it was 1905, while the Messiria were already there. The nine braches of Dink Ngok were migrated to area due to conflicts with other Dinka and Neur tribes. It is clear that the author of Abeyi article have good access to SPLA documentations, but not to the original British or Messiria documentations. Briaima M Adam Oct. 15, 2008 7: 34 (EST).
  • Abyei history is such a controversial issue that, now it represents the focual point for unity or disintegration of the Sudan. The whole Sudanese nation, North and South can not resolve the impasse as to whom he can claim Abyei area. Although the Messiria live in the area since 1775, but they are pastrolists, they move out of the area during rainy season and they come back during dry season. They spent about 6 months in the area, 2 months their journey back and forth and the rest they spent on the Goz land, sandy area of Babanousa, Rijl el Foula and others in northern West Kordofan toward the north. On the other hand, Dinka Ngok are mostly sedentary, most of them live in the area permanently since they migrated and those who are pastoralists move southward inland.Biraima M Adam Oct 16, 2008 12:25 (EST)
  • I'd like to help resolve this dispute by amending the article in a way that satisfies all views, yet I am uncertain of how to proceed. What exactly is this dispute about? Which particular section of the article is being addressed? - AnomanderDrake (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of dispute is the first lines of the history section

From at least the eighteenth century Abyei was inhabited by Ngok Dinka, kin to the Dinka of Southern Sudan. They were bordered to the north and northeast by the lands of the Messiria, a nomadic people who grazed their cattle through Abyei in an annual cycle.

The original poster was saying that the Messiria were first in Abyei before the Dinka were first to Abyei. He states the provided sources above support this statement, but I haven't looked at them to evaluate their credibility. 76.118.63.170 appears to be commenting on the political situation and can be ignored as not making comments intended to improve the article.- BanyanTree 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can the NPOV tag issues be addressed as the article Abyei could be one of those featured in the ITN category on wikipedia's main page without a tag.... "The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issues a decision on the borders of Abyei, a region subject to violent contention in Sudan. (BBC)" Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the early history and done a close read of the sources to avoid projecting the situation at the time of the writing into the past, as well as adding the reference Badam571 linked above about the Dajo claim. If someone has access to Cunnison's work, more detail would be appreciated. I have removed the NPOV tag. - BanyanTree 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hard work. Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

[edit]

Abyei → Abyei (district) — to distinguish from Abyei (town).

I think it's time we turned Abyei into a disamb page and split the content as appropriate into Abyei (town) and Abyei (district). Any objections? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, makes sense  Nuβiατεch Talk/contrib 22:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If anyone is in a rush and wants to move it while it's still linked from the Main Page, please ask an admin to fix the link so it doesn't point to a dab page. - BanyanTree 04:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can wait until it comes off the main page. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this necessary? Disambiguation pages with only two entries are not of much use, especially where one use appears much more well known than the other (as appears to be the case here). A hatnote is the usual approach where there are only two ambiguous articles. older ≠ wiser 13:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Abyei Province (though I'm not 100% certain if that is the same as the district) and I think the naming issue will become much more complex now that Abyei district in effect has been split. I didn't realist there was a rule, I've seen plenty of dab pages with only 2 pages on. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Abyei (town) article is a small one and can be disambiguated with a hatnote. WP:DAB says, "If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary." If other pages are created in the future, the proposal can be revisited then. — AjaxSmack 04:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I won't insist. It seemed like a good idea but I admit I was unaware of the hatnote policy for 2 page dabbing. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your proposal is fair enough. If entities named Abyei multiply and conflict for primary status, a move might be warranted. — AjaxSmack 16:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


POV — The POV dispute is not resolved, still the author insist to project the area as belonging to nine Ngok Dinka chiefedoms, the fact which I dispuated long time back and provided evidence to the validity of the dispute. On the ground, dispute growing tense even after Hague courts intervention badam571 4:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.43.248 (talk)

addition about grazing

[edit]

I have reinserted the Grazing Right paragraph, the Grazing right is one of the main issues in the Abyei Area and its discussion will add benefits to the article, some one has kept deleting this part with out proper causes, the article must reflect all points of view and not only one point the addition by 72.37.171.28 (talk · contribs) of two largely duplicate paragraphs about grazing rights under the PCA decision. My main concern is that the references given cannot support the content - with one being a reference to a reference in another Wikipedia article about a 1965 British law and the other being a work from 1960. Information about the specifics of grazing as a point of contention would obviously be useful to this article, but it would be much better with some current references. The concluding statements about "which will violate all equality standards" seem to be the opinion of the editor, which is prohibited by WP:NOR. Please avoid inserting personal analysis or opinion into Wikipedia articles. - BanyanTree 01:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the deletion of the Grazing right is not a neutral decision, grazing right along with establishing the historical ownership of the land is the heart of the problem that will need to be addressed in the article
I agree with the statement that the concluding statements about "which will violate all equality standards" seem to be the opinion of the editor however its to be stated that historical references are inherently old in most of the time and thus stating that references are old from 1968 as a reason to delete the paragraph is not a solid reason due to the fact that most there are no newer cases on the grazing right. The current article it self has references even century older than the stated one
I suggest adding a paragraph about the grazing right at the end of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.28 (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Italic text'[reply]
Thanks for bringing your concerns to the talk page.
The main issue is that none of the assertions made can be supported by the references, e.g. that the PCA has given grazing rights to the Messiria, that this "implies" common ownership, that it implies that the Messiria will thus have a say in land use decisions, etc etc. It should be relatively easy to find a reference for the first of those assertions, if true, but I can't tell how much of the rest is personal analysis. Using a 1960s law and work to project the future political/economic situation in Abyei post-referendum sounds like the very definition of original research. Please provide current references for current situations. - BanyanTree 05:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ihave added the fact tha t itis not true the PCA has assigned the twon of Abyie tof the Dinka the true fact is that the international court has not declare any party as the owner of Abyie town it has only redrew the Abyei border with out interfering on or deciding the owner of the land however the international court has affirmed the Messatia grazing right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.0.151 (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting to this discussion but your edit (and a subsequent edit by a new account that may be you) still doesn't provide any external sources. Who has what land rights is precisely the point of contention. Your edit seems to imply that there is an argument that redrawing the borders also means that personal land ownership will be switched, which is not at all obvious and is certainly not already stated. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and provide a reference for the assertions you are adding. If you are unfamiliar with how to make footnotes on Wikipedia articles, I would be happy to help if you put the external links on this talk page. Thanks, BanyanTree 23:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the phrase indicating that the PCA has …… and reaffirming the town of Abyei as the heartland of the Ngok Dinkas This was not stated or indicated by the Court, I cannot find anywhere in the court ruling where it states that the PCA affirm the town of Abyei to the Dink , the court drew boundaries and had not decide on the ownership of the abyei town —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.19.29 (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Though I don’t agree with stating that reference has to be new in order to be valid but anyway I have added new references supporting the Grazing right Ref are listed below McCarthy, N. (1996), ‘Common property and cooperation in rural Mexico’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. McCarthy, N., A. B. Kamara, and M. Kirk (2003), ‘Co-operation in risky environments: evidence from southern Ethiopia’, Journal of African Economies 12: 236–270. McCarthy, N. and J.-P. Vanderlinden (2004), ‘Resource management under climatic risk: a case study from Niger’, Journal of Development Studies 40: 120–142. RACHAEL E. GOODHUE 2008 “Traditional property rights, common property, and mobility in semi-arid African pastoralist systems”. Environment and Development Economics 14: 29–50 C _ 2008 Cambridge University Press —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.19.29 (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not even going into the substance of this paragraph, its English needs some serious work. There are repeated words, misplaced commas, citations not properly separated from the sentences they refer to, etc. DjenebaNY (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC) DjenebaNY[reply]

I have removed the disputed paragraph. Aside from its poor English it was clear WP:OR, synthesising sources not directly related to Abyei , in order to drive forward an argument about the unfairness of the process (in breach of WP:NPOV). It would need extensive reworking to avoid breaching these core policies. TheGrappler (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I have reinserted the Grazing Right paragraph, the Grazing right is one of the main issues in the Abyei Area and its discussion will add benefits to the article, the references cited are discussing Grazing rights and their implications, it appears that some one kept deleting this part with out proper causes, the article shall reflect all points of view and not only one sided point of view

I have removed the paragraph again, as historical consensus on this talk page shows the text is deeply flawed. Anonymous editor above, please do not remove comments from this talk page. The paragraph breaches various policies and guidelines, including WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV as well as the rules of basic English spelling and grammar. There is no problem at all with reflecting a range of viewpoints on the status of Abyei, so long as those disparate viewpoints are brought together in a balanced manner using high quality references, not by a swathe of rhetoric in which the article text is engaged in an attempt to construct an argument. This problem is visible immediately from language such as "by all means of modern laws", "it is to be noted", "it is obvious that", "it is also clear that"). If you want to include a Northern Sudanese viewpoint on this page, find and quote a politician or academic in support of the actions of the North - what you aren't allowed to do in Wikipedia is to use the article text to make the point. Please discuss controversial changes to the article text on the talk page so we can find a form that is in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. TheGrappler (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed material continues to be added without explanation. It has been reverted again. TheGrappler (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this is just getting absurd. I've had to remove the disputed material yet again, this time it has been inserted in three separate places in the text!! Please, please stop. Just come to the talk page and discuss this rationally, to see if a policy-and-guideline compliant addition can be drafted. TheGrappler (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinserted the addition about grazing right again, I belie you must adhere to facts and not text that reflect one opinion only, if you have any logical reasoning to the removal please state that reason, if its only because the idea are against to your goals or believe please don’t remove text with out proper reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.28 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that someone kept deleting any addition about Grazing right, after several reinsertion of the Grazing right phrase, the editor has locked the paper for editing however this Lock has been done after the removal of the grazing right phrase, and it will be fair enough to add the phrase and then lock the page and not ViceVersa, The decision of the editor to lock the page after taking out the Grazing right phrase which is supported by all scientific documents seams to be unfair and not a natural decision

Grazing rights are an important aspect of the Abyei conflict and it is important that they are discussed in a neutral and well-sourced way. Please read WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:NPOV to understand the criteria that additions of text to a Wikipedia article must meet. After you have done that, please read this talk page again, and you will see that several editors have explained why the paragraph that has been continually added (and removed several times by several different editors) does not meet these criteria. If you can use this constructive criticism to draft a better addition, then discuss it on this talk page, it can be inserted into the article. (Please don't mistake the fact that the disputed text has been removed, for a sign of bias among editors. The concern is about the neutrality, sourcing and prose style of the proposed addition.) TheGrappler (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grazing Rights and Second Class Citizenship

[edit]

To the editors, Please see below in reference to grazing rights, I suggest adding this to the artice as the Grazing right is the sole heart of the problem,

Grazing Right by the PCA and its consequences The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), in The Hague, has granted Messiria tribe the grazing right, this imply the right on the common ownership of the Abyei Fertile land see[1][2][3][4]. Modern laws do not recognize different classes of citizenship and human rights dictate that all citizens are equal, if a person has right on a common Land ownership then this will directly imply his/her right to decide on the future of his/her property see McCarthy 1996, 2003, and 2004. This common ownership of the land is different than, and must not to be confused with private ownership, As an example Southern Sudanese has the right on the Southern Sudan common land and thus were eligible to vote to determine its future, its to be noted that recent Referendum voting was not determined by the private property ownership, its obvious that if someone has own private property this will not give him the right to vote. It’s also clear that over decades Messiria people have established their ownership by further having their own homes and own properties in the land as different form the common ownership of the land. On contrary while the Najok Dinka right on the voting is not disputed, its to be noted that a large number of the Najok are not currently resident in the Abyei area, and have fled the region further North to Khartoum, thus creating theoretically a scenario where a Messiria born and raised in the region has no right to vote whereas a Najok who has not seen the region before has the right to vote which may violate equality standards

1. McCarthy, N. (1996), ‘Common property and cooperation in rural Mexico’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley
2. McCarthy, N., A. B. Kamara, and M. Kirk (2003), ‘Co-operation in risky environments: evidence from southern Ethiopia’, Journal of African Economies 12: 236–270
3. McCarthy, N. and J.-P. Vanderlinden (2004), ‘Resource management under climatic risk: a case study from Niger’, Journal of Development Studies 40: 120–142
4. RACHAEL E. GOODHUE 2008 “Traditional property rights, common property, and mobility in semi-arid African pastoralist systems”. Environment and Development Economics 14: 29–50 C _ 2008 Cambridge University Press
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.188.129 (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm that you have read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SNYTH, WP:RS and WP:REF? Just please, please do. You've been trying to insert this material for months, but the basic problems remain, and if you just read the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia you will understand why this is absolutely unacceptable material!
  • It fails WP:REF. Only the first section of this paragraph is referenced. The rest is unsupported.
  • It fails WP:RS. A PhD dissertation is not usually treated as a reliable source. The sources need to directly support statements about Abyei. Source about Niger, Mexico or Ethiopia can't be considered as reliable sources in this context.
  • It failes WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH: This is an attempt to build an original argument on the basis of the sources provided (absolutely unacceptable) rather than to summarize the content of the sources (which is the correct aim of an encyclopedia).
  • It fails WP:NPOV: It treats one perspective on the Abyei crisis, as if it were correct. There are multiple perspectives on the Abyei dispute. It is important that these perspectives are represented in the article, not just one perspective! But the correct way to describe present them neutrally in an encyclopedia, is to describe who thinks what, as evidenced by which sources.
There is nothing wrong with ensuring that a viewpoint is adequately represented in a Wikipedia article. Criticisms of this material are not because of the particular viewpoint that you espouse, but because including this material as it is currently written would be a breach of many policies and guidelines. In particular, if you are building an argument in your own words, rather than simply giving a summary of what reliable and relevant sources say, then you're not complying with the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia (what you are doing would be more consistent with an advocacy website, such as your own blog).
If you want to ensure this viewpoint is represented in Wikipedia, then please read the policies and guidelines I linked. Find a reliable source in which this perspective on grazing rights is expressed. Summarize the content of the source, and make sure that the source you use is cited. Your summary must attribute this summarized perspective to the person or organization that expressed it in the source, rather than treat it as a statement of fact. What you can't do, is try to build an argument yourself, even if that argument is based on sources. Advocacy is strictly forbidden here. TheGrappler (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Abyei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Details

[edit]

This article is quite out of date, there are some additional details that could be included in the link below. https://reliefweb.int/report/south-sudan/adding-civilian-component-abyei-interim-force-essential-towards-matching-reality XavierGreen (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messiria, Misseriya, and possibly other spellings I have not yet come across

[edit]

Could one spelling be consistently adhered to for Messiria and Misseriya (and possibly other spellings I have not yet come across)? That way, while reading the article, one need not wonder whether several different peoples are meant.Redav (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abyei&oldid=1204471322"